School district: Spy Webcams activated 42 times

[TotallyOz]

When one hears the word "spy," one normally thinks of places like Moscow, London, and Washington rather than Rosemont, Pa. However, the controversy swirling around Rosemont's Harriton High School and the Lower Merion School District increasingly makes for bizarre reading. And even more bizarre thinking.

The school district has been accused of remote-controlled Webcam spying on its students. The student at the center of the allegations, Blake Robbins, claims the school, having produced a still photograph taken remotely by a school official, falsely accused him of selling drugs (I have embedded the video of CBS News interview with Robbins and his family).

One fact, though, has emerged that seems mystifying in the extreme.

 

Read the full story:

School district: Spy Webcams activated 42 times | Technically Incorrect - CNET News

[Gaybutton]

George Orwell was right, although slightly premature. Big Brother really is watching.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vza_bMuy42M

 

 

Students'-eye view of Webcam spy case | For the Record Podcast - CNET News

 

Students'-Eye View of Webcam Spy Case

 

by Larry Magid

 

Students at Herriton High School in Lower Merion School District near Philadelphia are given Apple MacBook laptops to use both at school and at home. Like all MacBooks, the ones issued to the students have a Webcam. And, in addition to the students' ability to use the Webcam to take pictures or video, the school district can also use it to take photographs of whomever is using the computer.

 

In a civil complaint (PDF) filed in federal court, a student at the school, Blake Robbins, said he received a notice from an assistant principal informing him that "the school district was of the belief that minor plaintiff was engaged in improper behavior in his home, and cited as evidence a photograph from the Webcam."

 

The district said in a statement that the "security feature was installed to help locate a laptop in the event it was reported lost, missing or stolen so that the laptop could be returned to the student." The district further explained that "upon a report of a suspected lost, stolen or missing laptop, the feature was activated by the district's security and technology departments. The tracking-security feature was limited to taking a still image of the operator and the operator's screen." The district claims it has "not used the tracking feature or Webcam for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever."

 

Subsequently, district Superintendent of Schools Christopher W. McGinley sent a letter to parents saying that the security tracking feature is being disabled and that there will be "a thorough review of the existing policies for student laptop use" and a "review of security procedures to help safeguard the protection of privacy, including a review of the instances in which the security software was activated."

 

In the mean time, the Associated Press is reporting that the FBI is investigating the district and "will explore whether Lower Merion School District officials broke any federal wiretap or computer-intrusion laws," according to an unnamed official who spoke to the AP.

 

In an interview with CBS Evening News, plaintiff Blake Robbins said he was unaware that the camera could be activated at his house. "I thought that there was no way that they could do that at my home," Robbins said, adding that the assistant principal "thought I was selling drugs, which is completely false."

 

On the CBS Early Show, Harriton High sophomore Savannah Williams said she keeps the laptop in her bedroom and says that its on while she is "getting changed, doing my homework, taking a shower, everything." She said she takes it into the bathroom with her to listen to music while showering. "I was shocked," she added. She said "everyone is talking about it at school...everyone was really worried about 'what are they watching me doing.'"

 

At least one student at Harriton isn't particularly worried about the administration spying on students. In a podcast interview, 16-year-old junior Jon Brodo said "I don't think anyone knows the true story...the problem is in this case is that there are so many rumors going around." He said that he is somewhat concerned, but "I do trust that the school district knows its bounds." Brodo said that most students, however ,"it's been pretty hectic. It's the conversation of everybody. I've seen the kid (plaintiff Blake Robbins) in the hallways. The atmosphere is definitely pro the kid and antischool district."

 

On its Web site, Lower Merion School District says that it was one of the first districts in the country to issue laptops to all high-school students. And that is an extremely laudable effort on the part of the district to bring learning into the 21st century. It's also commendable that the school put some thought into a recovery system to help locate lost and stolen laptops but it's quite unfortunate that they used a system that enables administrators to take photographs of students using the machines away from school.

 

Of course, no judge has yet ruled on the plaintiff's claim and the school has denied that it has used the cameras for anything other than helping recover missing machines. But even if that turns to be the case, the mere fact that staff members had the ability to turn on the camera remotely is problematic. While it's fair to assume that the school could monitor what students do with district owned equipment (just as employers can with equipment used by employees even when they're away from the office), I can understand why students and their parents would be shocked to learn that officials could remotely turn on the camera.

____________________

 

I find this part especially interesting:

 

"Officials of the Lower Merion School District, outside Philadelphia, acknowledged Friday that they remotely activated webcams 42 times in the past 14 months, but only to find missing laptops given to students. They insist they never did so to spy on students, as the family of 16-year-old Blake Robbins claimed in the federal lawsuit." - CBS News

 

Did these school officials have reason to believe that this boy was in possession of a missing laptop? It seems to me that if they caught an image of the very boy to whom the computer was issued, the "trying to track down a thief" excuse isn't going to help them very much. The computer wasn't stolen and certainly the boy would have had no reason to have reported the computer stolen since he was in possession of it.

 

Just what the USA needs . . . schools spying on the goings on in the privacy of people's homes.

 

"Did you hear what happened in my home? In my home! In my bedroom where my wife sleeps; where my children come to play with their toys. In my home!"

- Al Pacino, '"The Godfather, Part II'

[Guest lvdkeyes]

It's outrageous!

[Gaybutton]

It's outrageous!

I can't even imagine parents who would want a school deciding to spy on their children within their own homes. I can't even imagine that parents would want schools spying on their children at all. Even if schools spy on their children within the confines of the school via web cams, then I would think parents would at least want to be informed that was going on.

 

I'll bet any kid who is in possession of a school-issued laptop with a web cam has already figured out how to solve that little problem with a small piece of electrical tape covering the lens.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

I wonder how many kids have been video taped undressing.

[Gaybutton]

I wonder how many kids have been video taped undressing.

Something was said about 42 times. Somehow it would be a little difficult to believe they thought there were 42 cases of computer theft. These people are real prizes! I don't understand how they possibly could have thought invasion of privacy in people's homes, without even letting anyone know they could or would do that, is something they thought would be acceptable, especially in an affluent school district such as that. Somebody is in for major trouble and I won't be at all surprised if many more lawsuits follow.

 

Another scary thought . . . is this the only school district in the USA, or anywhere else for that matter, doing this?

 

If I was a parent I would either give the computer back to the school, no matter what the school district, or would instruct my kid to put electrical tape over the camera input. If I ever discovered a school where my kid goes was pulling a stunt like this, I'd sure be in my lawyer's office double quick.

 

I'm waiting to see if there will be some sort of explanation as to just how this kind of invasion of privacy could help them track down a stolen computer or even if it could really help at all, how that is supposed to justify invasion of privacy, especially on children in their own homes without parental knowledge or consent. What's wrong with insuring their computers against theft instead of invading privacy? Also, can you imagine if a hacker got into their system somehow and started "personal observations"?

 

This case came up because an assistant principal had a photo that she interpreted to be the kid with drugs. Even if the kid really had drugs, how does that jive with them saying the only reason they would use the web cam is to try to track down stolen computers? That's one assistant principal I think just may be working at a Burger King pretty soon, along with whoever else was responsible. That is, of course, if they don't find themselves in jail instead.

 

Good luck getting out of this one. They'll need it.

[Gaybutton]

Accused assistant principal speaks out:

 

http://www.kyw1060.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4420623

[Guest lvdkeyes]

It reminds me of "I never had sexual relations with that woman."

[Gaybutton]

Here's some more:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3rtHfoCKi4

 

And here (many more videos and statements):

 

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/education/022410_Harriton_High_School_Assistant_Principal_Statement

 

In one of the videos the student brought out that nobody has accused the assistant principal of having anything to do with activating the web cam, but obviously somebody did and the resulting photo was used in disciplinary action against him.

 

Some answers that would interest me are why was the web cam activated in the first place? When the web cams are activated, the school is saying that they only take a photo. How is that done? Is the web cam activated and then instant takes a photo and then deactivated or does someone sit there watching until they have what they need for the photo? How do they know that they won't inadvertently catch someone in a compromising position or embarrassing moment?

 

By the school's own admission, there have been 42 times when their web cams were remotely activated. If they're searching for stolen computer, how do they know whether the computer they wish to search is even turned on? If, as the school district claims, the use of the photos is for the sole purpose of trying to find a missing computer, then why was this boy even called into the assistant principal's office at all? The school district admits they didn't inform students or parents that they even have this capability. Why didn't they? If they activated the system 42 times, when will it be made pubic whose computers were activated and what was seen on the photos in those cases?

[Gaybutton]

A copy of the lawsuit document can be seen at:

 

http://safekids.com/robbins17.pdf